That last link might seem less apt, a bit off topic. But think about it. It's not. Drudge knows what he's doing. This is about media bias.

So all the moderators will be liberals. Can't help that — you say? — all the big media people are liberal. Couldn't we get one Fox News person — Chris Wallace, for example? But Fox News is somehow known to be biased in a way that those other networks are not. Ironically, the reason that factoid is known is that we learned it through all those other media outlets. Their voices corroborate the view that Fox News is biased. Perception of bias is a numbers games.

ADDED: Why Crowley? They needed a woman... and it was the best they could do?

117 comments:

So all the moderators will be liberals. Can't help that — you say? — all the big media people are liberal

No shit.

The American people are so gullible that they can't bring themselves to demand a fair moderator.

Jake Tapper from ABC is the only Big network journalist that can play it own the middle and doesn't leave a White House press briefing headed for the bathroom like the others to apply more Preparation H.

Man how our public education system has colllude with the Mian Stream Media and destroyed the ability to reason and think intelligently in our nation's citizens. Obama even with Romney? Seriously? There is that much stupid in America?

As it is always, so shall it ever be. Candy Crowley is awful. I wish the republican candidates would insist on having at least one or two debates moderated by the someone at least moderately conservative.

I was watching CNN at the gym the other day, and they had a panel talking about the VP pick and everyone was a liberal. I know people joke about Fox having a token liberal, but CNN doesn't even bother.

Oh, plenty of so-called "independents" are convinced Fox is biased, too. They just can't conceive of why a network might use a different narrative from the others. Different stories - different issues - different spin - ?

Why the FUCK can't the Republicans chose their own moderators or at least have some say in who they are?? Why do they always let themselves get roped a doped into these moronic debates that aren't debates?? The non-debates are an opportunity for the biased media talking heads to frame slanted and loaded questions that benefit the Democrats. Have you stopped beating your wife questions. The MSM talking head makes a biased statement and the Republican has to start by defending him/herself.

At least Gingrich was wise to the tactic and told them to stuff it. One of the main reasons for Gingrich's surge in the primaries was his refusal to put up with this total bullshit. It would be great to see Romney and Ryan take a page from that playbook.

You might as well be in a tag team wrestling match with only one member of YOUR team in the ring. Out numbered and with one hand tied behind your back.

Come on Republicans. Grow some balls and tell the MSM to eff off until you have a truly impartial moderator. What a bunch of morons. It is like they WANT to lose.

I think that pretty much everyone could have gotten behind Tapper. But I don't see the President agreeing to him after the way he has made Carney dance. That's the problem; Republicans will suffer a biased moderator. They're used to hostile media; Democrats see no reason to sit down with people who speak truth to their power.

By the way: Until the 2008 primary YouTube debate where the Republicans questions almost universally came from plants, shills and Democrat operatives, I wasn't convinced of media bias. After that though, and the following 2008 debates, I was convinced.

Get a real moderator like Chris Wallace or Jake Tapper. Raise a stink about the biased media. American's will revere you for it and it will wake up the intellectually lazy (Democrats, socialist Democrats, poorly eductaed Democrats - i repeat myself).

Or how about we ditch the "journalists" and go with a set of subject-matter experts? How about Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson for the first debate, Colin Powell and James M. Lindsay for the second, and then Eugene Volokh and Alan Dershowitz for the third.

Yes, Fox is biased to the right to about the same degree that CNN and NPR are to the left (but nowhere near as much as MSNBC). For news without political bias, turn to...ESPN.

As for moderators -- why not a debate with no moderator at all?

For this independent, though, I don't really care -- I doubt I'll watch the debates. At this point I've seen more than enough of Obama to prefer what's behind door #2 (although if my state isn't closely contested, Gary Johnson will probably get my vote).

Or how about we ditch the "journalists" and go with a set of subject-matter experts? How about Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson for the first debate, Colin Powell and James M. Lindsay for the second, and then Eugene Volokh and Alan Dershowitz for the third.

"Get a real moderator like Chris Wallace or Jake Tapper. Raise a stink about the biased media. American's will revere you for it and it will wake up the intellectually lazy (Democrats, socialist Democrats, poorly eductaed Democrats - i repeat myself)."

Obama would not agree and the debates do offer an opportunity to show the candidates to a large audience. Reagan turned the opportunity to his advantage. He, of course, was a pro in media. Ryan is agile enough to do something similar.

Jiu Jitsu is a method of using the opponent's strength to defeat him. It can be done. Gingrich showed one way although it is important not to look angry at the time. Gingrich looks angry all the time. Ryan doesn't. Romney doesn't either. He's not as agile as Ryan but he just needs to keep remembering, "There you go again, Mr President."

If only that were true. Ever watched their NCAA basketball bracket coverage?

Regarding 60 Minutes editing out Ryan's comments about his mother on Medicare; the last cycle Instapundit suggested that Republicans do these interviews only if they can also bring their own camera crews. I'd love to see Romney/Ryan insist on making their own recording as a precondition for doing interviews.

ESPN has no bias? Let's take a poll... How many stories has ESPN done on the African-American Studies scandal to hit UNC? Who has a BIG contract to show ACC games? and, Who is big in the ACC?

Now compare that to What team located in Kentucky, with the initials UK, won the last NCAA Championship, has had the #1 recruiting class for 3 years straight, is the winningest program of all time, but hasn't had a Gameday visit in 5 years?

My point is that all media is biased. Just don't be overt in it.(keep it in your pants, so to speak) Try for some semblence of impartiality. You won't succeed but it's better than out and out cheerleading that passes as journlistocism today.

" I'd love to see Romney/Ryan insist on making their own recording as a precondition for doing interviews."

Anybody being interviewed on 60 Minutes should do this. A friend of mine was in a 60 Minutes segment. It was the Sullivan vs Sullivan case where his ex-wife tried to claim half his income for life because she worked while he was a resident physician. She lost. He brought his own video team and they just appeared. The CBS crew had the choice to stay or leave and they stayed.

Another guy I know (He was the first black chief resident in surgery at a big east coast medical center) was lied to by CBS on what the story was. It was supposed to be about him but they edited all the stuff about him out and changed the story to an alleged "ghost surgery" story.

Anybody who has surgery in a big teaching hospital knows, or should know, that part of the surgery is done by residents in training.

CBS lies but that should be no surprise. Even shiloh could understand that.

James....recall when Dan Rather tried to ambush Bush 41 in 1988. Rather wanted to tape the interview.....Bush said he would only do a live interview (so it couldn't be edited). Rather made an ass of himself as he tried to take Bush down.

"How do you know that the Fox people weren't asked and refused to do it."

-- It's possible. However, I doubt a journalist would turn down a career making moment for no good reason. It's like asking why an author would decline to let the NYT review his or her book; of course you do that. It's going to be reviewed sooner or latter anyway, saying yes just means you earn brownie points and can exert some influence. There's no reason for a journalist to turn down the offer to moderate a presidential debate; except, maybe, scheduling conflicts. Like getting a heart transplant. That day.

One big difference this time: Romney / Ryan are a much more seasoned ticket than McCain / Palin plus R & R have the benefit of seeing what didn't work in 2008.

Another big difference: Obama / Biden can't hide behind the Hope & Change shuck. They have a record and it's mostly one of failure. Obama is overexposed as a speaker. Having played so much gutter politics, he can't go for the high-minded rhetoric of a uniter.

I'm not worried about the debates even with biased moderators. In fact the moderators may want to be careful. This election is not just a referendum on Obama, but the whole Blue model including the media.

Though, honestly, was it Blitzer who Gingrich blasted repeatedly for asking off topic questions? I think the moderators are going to be smart enough not to be as blatantly antagonistic, since Romney has recently shown he was willing to pick up the gauntlet that he was slapped with.

Shiloh: Ryan's plan was praised by Bowles as a serious plan. You can't lie about Ryan being a neophyte. The left shouldn't have been able to lie about Palin being inexperienced either, but somehow did. I think Ryan will do a better job defending it. And, I think, sadly, part of it is that the left is more willing to smear a woman than a man.

Mark W said: "Fox is biased to the right to about the same degree that CNN and NPR are to the left..."

Beg to disagree.

Fox has some strongly opinionated folks - with some strange opinions - in their "opinion" slots. Bill O'Reilley comes to mind. But OK, it's opinion and not "news".

What's disappointing about Fox' "news" is:

..if Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, etc. says the world is flat or the sky is green, then Fox feels obliged to hold a "fair and balanced debate" on the assertion.

..these debates more often than not are allowed - or encouraged - to degenerate into yelling matches with everyone talking at the same time. (Krauthammer is allowed to finish his sentences, but not because he is the only sane guy in the room; rather out of deference that it's unfair to brow-beat a quadrapalegic)

..the major national "news" for the last three years has been who will be elected President in 2012. This is not "news"; it is speculation and opinion.

..international news - what is happening in the whole of the planet outside our portion of North America - is covered in 80 seconds during the hour.

We're on the border here, and to get real news of the world we watch Mexican TV - not your US Spanish language stations, real Mexican TV.

Likability is good. Likability is nice. Likability is an asset in a presidential race. However, is likability enough?

I find the liberal focus on likability curious. Do they really think Americans choose their President the way they chose their Prom King in high school? Speaking as a voter, I find that insulting.

Never mind that Obama is not that likable a guy compared to real pros in that department like JFK, Reagan and Clinton. Admittedly Romney is kind of stiff -- though that may be changing -- but is he really any worse than Al Gore?

Don't forget that Nixon, one of the most unlikable presidential candidates in the modern era, won two out of three elections, the last by a landslide.

Yeah, let the other team's cheerleaders referee the game. Great idea! Same as it ever was.

This election is about pleasant untruths versus unpleasant truths. People would rather hear Obama's lies and will listen more willingly to the people who spread them. So maybe giving those people center stage at every debate is not such a hot idea, RNC!

If you are a conservative, get over to the RNC's website and tell them off.

Not that I don't think Ryan and Romney can't handle these idiots (the mods and the oppoing team) easily. It's the impression that gets left behind, though. Sarah Palin won the VP debate on points but Gwen Ifill's (author of a glowing Obama bio) appallingly biased questioning left a different impression on those willing to favor Biden.

Lastly, nitwits have been attacking FOX for years in order to single it out as "biased." This is ludicrous but it is what happens when fantasy wish fulfillment runs amok. It becomes a reality for the majority of the population.

"Yet voters see something genuine, and that is why Mr. Obama seems to be surviving the stalled economy and his chuckleheaded remark: "If you've got a business -- you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."

Maureen is more clueless than usual. New York City may be the problem. November is coming.

Right past. Ignore the question and say whatever you wish to propound. Every single question. This isn't even not my idea, it's their own idea.

Don't even say the subject is changing, just change it.

Q: If elected president, what do you intend to do to counter the threat of global climate change?

A: Thank you for asking this important question, Candy, and allowing me the opportunity to respond. You see, Obama stole, 7 billion dollars to fund his own Obamacare that was passed to find out what is in it to affect all of Obama's 57 states. My plan corrects that theft and restores the funds to its proper spread sheet column under it's proper heading. Candy, it's important to remember debt does not disappear by calling it another name and taxes are still taxes no matter what else that Obama says they are called.

But you didn't answer my question. Global climate change is the greatest threat to humanity, how do you intend to address it?

My plan would affect only those under the age of 55. Those above will be able to keep the arrangements they've built around the system that is in place. That will be preserved. However newcomers, will be given broader range of choices through vouchers.

Republicans always whine about this to the media because they want to make the people think everything is so unfair for them. However, last I checked the debates are set up by the Republicans as well as the Democrats, who both run the Commission on Presidential Debates.

They set these debates up with all kinds of rules to ensure that everything is very controlled. They also lock out third party candidates by saying you have to be at 15% in the polls.

This usually means that 50-75% of the debate questions will be related to stuff like free contraception.

The Republicans and Democrats control what topics will be discussed and what topics won't be. Even in the so-called town hall debate -- the audience must submit questions beforehand. The candidates will pretty much know what they're gonna be asked.

Which is not only embarassing, it's a piss-poor way to gauge the calibre of a presidential candidate. Are they quick on the fly? Do they have details at their fingertips, accurate rebuttals to distortions or lies and the humility to admit they don't know everything? Can they state their positions clearly and articulate the underlying philosophy?

I'd pay good money to see Mitt debate the crackhead in chief one-on-one, no moderator, no audience, no preselected questions. Not that I expect Mitt to be the second coming of Lincoln-Douglas, but watching Obama try to bullshit his way past him would be worth the price of admission.

Oaf: Yeah, the party has so much control over the questions they were routinely sandbagged during the 2008 primary by questions from the opposition during their primary debate and Blitzer embarrassed himself during the Republican primary debate this year.

Go back and watch the Republican primary debates this year. If the media would be so blatantly antagonistic then, what makes you think they'll be any different? Don't blame Republicans for realizing the deck is stacked against them. Gwen Ifil, for God's sake, wrote a book about how great Obama would be as president, and she got to moderate a debate.

I'd like to see the guy who wrote The Amateur get to moderate a debate.

Nixon was an incumbent wartime president w/no discernible opposition when he won his landslide.

Shiloh: But now you're special pleading. If likability is that big a deal, Nixon should not have been elected in any of those races.

Otherwise, likability is just one piece of how a candidate gets elected and perhaps not all that important compared to other factors.

You seem to forget that McGovern ran a white-hot race in the Dem primaries, comparable to Obama's run in 2008. McGovern only collapsed after the Eagleton fiasco. In retrospect I'd say he was too radical to win in 1972, but it would have been closer without that decisive stumble right out of the gate.

And that's a stumble that Romney didn't make with Ryan. You can be sure that Ryan is thoroughly vetted.

Jake Tapper from ABC is the only Big network journalist that can play it own the middle and doesn't leave a White House press briefing headed for the bathroom like the others to apply more Preparation H.

Sheryl Atkisson (sp?) of CBS has been willing to gore sacred cows in pursuit of F & F.

Is it physically painful to have a clueless, moderate, flip/flopping RINO train wreck and a non legislative neophyte v-p on the Rep ticket? Rhetorical.

Well, 2008 was rough. What does it feel like to have an incompetent jackass and an empty suit as your standard bearer NOW?

Back when I was a CNN reporter (late 90's to early 2000's), I had this conversation with my boss, as we watched a Candy Crowley piece on our air:

ME: "How is it that the rest of us have to be objective, but Candy Crowley can say whatever she likes--stuff that is CLEARLY not fact, but her opinion-and we still run it as though it is news coverage?

BOSS: "I dunno."

ME: "Doesn't it seem to you that when a piece is nothing but a bundle of opinions, it should be labeled as commentary and run in a segment that is clearly described as such?

BOSS: "I guess so."

ME: "Do you GET that this is a horrible double standard, which any smart viewer would find insulting, and which I find insulting, too, because it cheapens what I do?"

BOSS: "Why are you picking a fight over this? I'm not the one who grandfathered her in."

My guess is the copy editors we all went through (known internally as "The "Row) didn't want to fight with her, because she was notoriously pit-bull stubborn, or they felt her longevity had earned her the viewers' trust. But the former doesn't guarantee the latter. See also Ross, Brian.

This group [Lehrer, etc] have not demonstrated they can ask tough, meaningful, pertinent questions to liberals. I just gave Romney a bit of my hard-earned money yesterday and I am going to ask his campaign to return it.

Shanna said:"I wasn't watching voluntarily, but sometimes you have to go with what's on. I just noticed the utter lack of diversity on their panel. They don't even pretend to try."

That gives me a great idea. During the debates when Romney / Ryan get asked about the whiteness of the Repub party, they should whip out pictures of the very white MSNBC lineup, the AP Board of Directors, the ABC, NBC, CBS top anchors and news division staff, and Obama's Cabinet.

I think EVERYONE needs to look up the definition of what constitutes a DEBATE.

None of these moronic dog and pony shows that we are inflicted with are debates. Having a 'moderator' asking random and loaded questions is NOT a debate. It is a gotcha news conference, which will be heavy on the stupid social issues, like birth control etc and light on the things that really matter like going FUCKING BROKE and how are we going to fix it.

A debate would be something like this.

Topic number 1: FISCAL POLICY Side R goes first and explains for 3 to 5 minutes. Side D gets 2 minutes to rebut the concepts presented. THEN Side D gets their 5 minutes to present and side R gets their 2 minutes of rebuttal.

and so on until the last segment where there is no set topic and each side gets 5 minutes to present and rebut any previous topics.

Topics are set ahead of time by agreement so each candidate has some time to prepare. They actually are given enough time to form a complete and coherent statement/argument. We might actually learn something in this format and the only purpose of the 'moderator' is to keep time.

Topic number 1: FISCAL POLICY Side R goes first and explains for 3 to 5 minutes. Side D gets 2 minutes to rebut the concepts presented. THEN Side D gets their 5 minutes to present and side R gets their 2 minutes of rebuttal.

And they MUST stay on topic. If not, then the moderator will call them for being off the assigned subject. They will have time at the end to meander and wander through other topics.

Michael K: I was old enough to pay attention to the 1972 race. It was not a foregone conclusion that McGovern would win that nomination, whatever happened in 1968.

McGovern was not a big name and he had Eugene McCarthy and Chisholm to contend with on the progressive side, and Humphrey and Muskie on the established moderate side. However, through blitzkrieg campaigning McGovern dispatched all his opponents.

He went to the convention with a strong lead but it wasn't clear that he would hold onto his delegates in the face of credential challenges from the ABM (Anybody but McGovern) forces. It looked as though it might become a brokered convention, but through some razzle-dazzle parliamentary maneuvering, the McGovern campaign won on the first ballot

Re MSM bias, this little tidbit-- a little thing, but so revealing-- struck me today. Re the difficulties the media will have "Palinizing" Ryan (though we can be sure they'll give it the old college try), Jonathan Tobin notes this in today NYT's profile:

Part of the problem is that the Times can’t seem to find anyone who knows the likable congressman to dish any non-existent dirt on him. For example, in describing Ryan as an ambitious and accomplished teenager with numerous activities to his credit, the Times stoops to describe him as a “politically astute suck up.” No, that’s not a quote from some teenage rival but an editorial comment inserted into the article by the authors without quotes or even an attempt to attribute this opinion to anyone who knew him.

Are you serious, NYT? A NYT front-page article (we're not talking an editorial by Maureen Dowd here or a Bill Maher quip) describes an intelligent, ambitious, hard-working teenage Ryan as a "politically astute suck up"? Suck up? Who wrote this, a teenage douchebag?

I mean, I know the NYT has become a joke in the age of Obama, yet they still find ways to surprise me.

edutcher: Like it or not and clothing stamps or not, I stand by my statement: "McGovern ran a white-hot race in the Dem primaries."

McGovern started as a long-shot progressive guy running against much better known Democrats: Muskie, McCarthy, Humphrey, and "Scoop" Jackson and pulled off a remarkable upset at the 1972 convention.

Look it up.

I remember those times well and I think you're mixing '68 with '72. McGovern had the youth movement and the Kennedys behind him. Muskie blew out in NH, and Jackson and was seen as an old fogey; Hump was the nominee in '68 and Clean Gene was its Obama.

Hot Air had a post on this and the gist of it was that both sides had to agree...that means no one from msnbc and no one from Fox. So,liberal as these people are, they are the compromise moderators. Imagine what Obama and Biden would have gotten if there had not been any kind of veto.

McCarthy was the upset candidate of 1968, though not an Obama. McCarthy ran well enough to persuade LBJ not to run for another term (though there is some new thinking on that score -- that LBJ believed he would die within a few years like his father did at his age) and to persuade RFK that an anti-war candidacy was possible.

So RFK jumped belatedly into the race, roared past McCarthy, then was assassinated in the early morning hours after he won the California primary.

Humbert Humphrey was the last Democrat standing at the disastrous Chicago convention. He lost narrowly to Nixon.

McGovern ran in 1972. He was the Obama of that race, coming from nowhere, powered by an idealistic base, and upsetting the powers-that-be of the Democratic party of that time, then crushing them at the convention, only to lose hugely to Nixon.

Fox Business Channel has some actual Republicans, I think, but the Fox News commentators that I have seen, or heard, are all basically Democrats, just not NYT/WaPo Democrats.Van Susteren is a mom; O'Reilly is a Boston-Irish Catholic, born and raised a Democrat; and Chris Wallacee is his father's son - nice guy and intelligent and he tries his best to understand where these conservatives are coming from, but he never quite gets it. Manhattan penthouse and Long Island estate liberal Democrat is his natural habitat.And the news announcers are just doing their jobs - now they even have John Roberts who spent his previous 20 years at CBS!

The moderators only have the power that the candidates give them. If Romney, in a polite and moderate way (which is his style) listens to the loaded question and then says what he thinks about the subject matter, that's what the national audience will hear. He doesn't have to play the moderator's game.

I represented a lot of expert witnesses in my legal career, and why they were ask some "Isn't it true ...?" loaded questions, I counseled them to say, "No, it isn't, and I'd like to tell you why." Romney and Ryan don't have to accept the questioners' premises. They just have to be polite, and not appear to be evasive.

When Crowley asks the first question, Ryan's response should be: "Before I answer your question, I would like to ask you why you said some think that my pick would be 'some sort of ticket death wish' "?

I would rather see a debate with no moderator at all, other than the sound guy* and a clock guy*. Decide on the timeslices ahead of time, then: Microphone A is turned on for the designated time, a very visible clock counts down the time remaining. At the end of the timeslice, Mic A is turned off and Mic B is turned on, and the clock restarted. If someone finishes their point before the timeslice is up, the techs swap the mic setting and the clock early.

-------------------------------*these are technical terms, saying nothing about the gender of the person.

" O'Reilly is as right as they come ". Sigh. He thinks of himself as a populist. Not a big fan of the second amendment. He leans right. Which is far from being as right as they come. Make one wonder about what else someone who could make such a silly statement might be wrong about.

To the commenter who said that the American people demand an unbiased debate moderator I would say that the American people had nothing to say about it. This was undoubtedly decided in negotiation between the Obama campaign and the Romney campaign. It probably went something like this: Team Obama: “if you want debates you will accept the left wingers we pick or no debates.” Team Romney: “OK.”